Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 674 F.2d 277 - Ragsdale v. Genesco, Inc.

Ragsdale v. Genesco, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

674 F.2d 277 · 1982

Citation profile

47
cited by 47 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
August 2019
most recently cited

17 federal appellate · 2 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 47 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2019 · most notably Taylor v. Freeland & Kronz (1992), Goff v. Taylor (1983)

17 federal appellate · 2 district ·

3101982199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Applies 11 U.S.C. § 105 · 11 U.S.C. § 522

Relies on Vasilion v. Vasilion · In Re Ford · Martine v. Cipa (In Re Cipa) · Ragsdale v. Genesco, Inc. (In Re Ragsdale)

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “The phrase 'to the extent such interest ... is exempt from process under applicable nonbankruptcy law' is of decisive importance. If the Ragsdales' residential real property could be reached to satisfy a state court judgment in Virginia, it could not be successfully claimed as exempt”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “to the extent that such interest as a tenant by the entirety or joint tenant is exempt from process under applicable nonbankruptcy law”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “The court may issue any order, process, or judgment that is necessary or appropriate to carry out the provisions of this title. No provision of this title providing for the raising of an issue by a party in interest shall be construed to preclude the court from, sua sponte, taking any action or making any determination necessary or appropriate to enforce or implement court orders or rules, or to prevent an abuse or process.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.